(Color removed.) For some reason, this vote made me laugh. Mal finally votes for me, but only after I role claim.
About those who claim “Vanilla Townie”, I treat such a claim as a non-statement. In my view, everyone is making this claim implicitly, until they make another claim.
I need to re-evaluate who I’m voting for. Mal is my favourite of course, but my other suspect has claimed Monk. I’ll look over the Captain, since he’s building up a large following.
Is fluidruid really voting for herself?
Apologies, IIRC, the second vote for fluiddruid is actually NAF.
It’s an elaborate double bluff. Clever. Very clever.
Laugh away, fella. I have my own opinion on those who role-claim where it’s not even possible to verify that the role exists in the game. And yes, considering how long you’ve been on my case it’s surprising that I haven’t even hit you with an OMGUS up to now, but I suppose I should feel comforted: you’ve apparently decided that you’re going to get me dunked by hook or by crook, and as long as that looks like a reasonable possibility I suppose I don’t have to worry too much about getting night-killed… you know, while you’re doing the scum’s work for them and all that.
After thinking more, I haven’t come up with anything. I have to believe **Zeriel **at this point, so I obviously won’t vote for him. I’m just not suspicious enough of **Malacandra **or Captain Klutz or **fluiddruid **to vote for any of them. You know what? I really don’t believe his claim, so I’m going to replace my vote on Pleonast.
–FCOD
Correct.
:dubious:
I’m I missing something here? Instead of you, in that part. 
If someone tells you that you ought to find them scummy, at some point, you probably should. Vote fluiddruid.
I said I would do an investigation of Pleonast.
Why Pleonast you may ask? Really it’s a confluence of two unrelated things.
Firstly, several posters have mentioned post [post=8740328]1020[/post], in which suspicion was leveled by Kat, Cultist, at Malacandra, Pleonast, Sachertorte and FlyingCowOfDoom. The suggestion that one of these four players is a Cultist is reasonable. Secondly, when going through my notes Yesterday, I realised that I had little or nothing against four players – ie that Nava, Pleonast, SnakesCatLady and USCDiver had flown right under my radar.
Pleonast is on both lists, so I chose to look at his posts first.
I’ve been through his posts; but so has amrussell in post [post=8815877]2198[/post]. Listing his posts again would be redundant, so I won’t.
From his posts several conclusions emerge.
Firstly that Pleonast believes votes are cheap. A natural consequence of this philosophy is that he should be voting and unvoting readily all the time. Now I’m on almost exactly the opposite end of the spectrum – I believe votes to be significant, and they should not be placed lightly. The fact that we have a difference of opinion says nothing about whether we are on the same team or not.
Secondly, that Pleonast comes down hard on people discussing topics he believes it is not in the town’s best interest to discuss. He may be right that it’s not – I tend to agree with him about the Forbidden Topic. But voting for people just because they keep talking about it is further than I would wish to go. That goes back to point 1 though.
Now, in his analysis post amrussell lays out a case for Pleonast’s Cult membership based on Pleo finding MTGman scummy for staging a fight, but not ArizonaTeach who he was arguing with. This is reasonable; they should both be under suspicion.
However, there is another question to look at, and that is the context of Pleonast’s shift in ground.
Pleonast stated he was suspicious of MTGman in post 823. At the time the vote count was as follows :
Sachertorte : 4
ArizonaTeach : 3
Autolycus : 3
Kyrie Eleison : 3
Hal Briston : 2
MadTheSwine : 2
Pasta : 2
zuma[sub]1[/sub] : 2
DiggitCamara[sub]1[/sub] : 1
Idle Thoughts : 1
Malacandra : 1
MTGman : 1
NAF1138 : 1
Queueing : 1
I agree that the misstatement of the vote count when he shifted has the effect of making his move seem less suspicious. However, this is offset by another question.
At the time of post 823 there were three people on three votes, and Sachertorte – someone who appears on Pleonast’s suspect list – on four. If he was laying the groundwork for a later shift of votes to a non-Cultist in order to save the Cultist, then wouldn’t he be likely to pick someone closer to being dunked when he made the preliminary post?
I don’t get a Cultist feel from the vote switch because of that. Not unless it later transpires that all four of the then top vote-getters were Cultists. So far we know one was; against that is the general consensus that Sachertorte was Hal Briston’s Night 2 investigation, and turned up Believer. (This may, of course, be wrong. However, it is the most reasonable interpretation advanced so far.)
I’m also unsure of where the last accusation (re the attitude change from “unafraid of dunking” to “high self preservation”) came from… Amr, could you expand this for me please?
On the whole (and taking into account the roleclaim, which I want to discuss with the others) I don’t think Pleonast is a Cultist.
I reserve the right to reverse my stand if evidence is presented to the contrary.
Just for my own benefit (and hopefully yours), latest unofficial vote count
Captain Klutz (6) - Fretful Porpentine, Queuing, USCDiver, Idle Thoughts, Hockey Monkey, HazelNutCoffee
fluiddruid (4) - sachetorte, NAF1138, amrussell, Kyrie Eleison
DiggitCamara (2) - Captain Klutz, Zeriel
Malacandra (2) - Pleonast, zuma
Pleonast (2) - Malacandra, FlyingCowOfDoom
Kyrie Eleison (1) - DiggitCamara v2
17 of 21 players have a vote registered at this time
Players who have yet to vote: **MHaye, Pygmy Rugger (**nee Nava), ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies and fluiddruid
Dusk in approximately 8 hours.
Your point about Mtgman only being on one vote at the time of the FOS post is a good one - I’ll have to think about that.
The shift in attitude is based on what I see as the massive difference between Day 1 and the rest of the game. In Day 1, Pleonast is voting frequently, calling out players, trying to force discussion. He states that townies shouldn’t be afraid of being dunked, and that he personally is not. Fine. Then, he picks up a couple of votes (from Cookies and Hockey IIRC) and notes that he seems to be playing too aggressively. From then on, his vote count and post count fall off a cliff. He sticks to voting Malacandra almost exclusively, rather than using votes to generate discussion, which is his professed method of play. On Day 4, he switches from Mal to Mad, but that is such a consensus it hardly counts as poke-voting. The strong impression I got from going through his posts - a good half of which were Day 1 - was that he realised he’d stuck his neck out and pulled it back in sharpish. To be honest, its because he spent so much time promoting his style of play that the change really jarred - the shift from “Townies shouldn’t fear dunking” and “Votes are cheap” to “Perhaps I’m being to aggressive” and repetitive one-note voting.
As he points out, he remained an object of suspicion for some but from Day 2 on he is a much more low key, one-note poster than he boldly claimed to be on Day 1. As I said when I retracted my vote, however, that fits just as well with a secret role as it does with scum.
For now, I’m not *completely *convinced but if the roleclaim is false then I expect later events will prove that. If that occurs, it’s an easy dunk.
Ah thanks. That makes sense when explained like that.
Roleclaims.
HockeyMonkey’s claim is very difficult to test. On the one hand, it’s not susceptible to investigation, nor is there any easy way to see the action of the role. On the other hand, it’s a bit risky because any individual Cultist is more valuable to the Cult than the Alchemist is to the Town. (This is not a reflection on the player, but that the role is more likely to harm the Town than the Cult if the role’s power is used). On the gripping hand, if the claim buys another Day for that Cultist before the axe falls (say by the true Alchemist counterclaiming the next Day) then it might well have been worth it; and of course a minor power role has been outed – meaning that the Cult have a smaller pool to investigate for their own quarry.
Remembering that HM claimed some significant time before Nightfall, and there was no counterclaim, I’m inclined at this stage to believe the claim. (While we know now that there could be multiple Alchemists, that was not known at the time of the claim.)
Zeriel’s claim of Monkdom is susceptible to verification, either by investigation or by testimony of fellow Monks. (No roleclaims please. Not over this, anyway.) There are no actions the Monks can take we can look for though. It’s also susceptible to counterclaiming by a Monk. The risk of the Cult losing bigtime is higher, and again Zeriel’s claim was not a last minute thing. Most players will have ample opportunity to consider it before Nightfall.
Pleonast’s claim of Martyr is also difficult to test. Since it’s not on the main role list (it being the secret role) it may well not be susceptible to investigation. There are certainly no observable consequences of the use of the roles power that are not fatal to the role holder. We can’t rule out the possibility of multiple Martyrs either.
I still don’t know who to vote for. I’m going to take a quick look at the posts of the two leaders and see if anything springs out. I’ve got 9 hours.
Personally, I feel you should be aiming to make a determination earlier (as in, hours ago). Waiting until the final hours only makes you look scummy to me. You are not the only one to have not yet vote, but your consistent hemming and hawing late in the day is drawing my suspicion.
Ah, so I am not part of the 3some? Damn I always wanted to have a 3some…
They ARE all they’re cracked up to be! 
sorry couldn’t resist
Lewd person! Scum tell! Scum tell, I say?
(It’ll be Night soon.)
Er, that ? is supposed to be a !
No no, it’s much funnier uncorrected.
Scum tell, I say?